Nigel Griffiths: Obesity, especially among children, is a threat to their health, to the NHS and to the economy. The World Health Organisation, the World Cancer Research Fund and the Government's expert scientists have warned that obesity is a problem of potentially epidemic proportions and that drastic action is needed if millions of young lives are not to be blighted and billions of pounds drained from the NHS and the economy.
	The impact of obesity on Britain has been likened to climate change: a disaster for the lives of individuals, our health service and the economy. Today, in Britain, one in three children are classified as overweight or obese. More than nine out of 10 children consume too much saturated fat; more than eight out of 10 too much sugar; and more than seven out of 10 too much salt. The Government's foresight report has predicted that between half and two thirds of all our children will be overweight or obese if current trends continue.
	The estimated cost of the rise of obesity in cash terms is put at £45 billion a year if no action is taken. Diabetes UK tells us that, unless action is taken, the incidence of type 2 diabetes will rise by 70 per cent., and of strokes by 30 per cent. and coronary heart disease 20 per cent. Massive funding to advertise and promote junk foods—£800 million a year—is undermining the efforts of parents to control the food and sugary drinks that children take. As a former Minister with some responsibility for the advertising industry, I am pleased to introduce a Bill that will reinforce parents' efforts and make it easier to encourage healthier eating to benefit children and the economy.
	There is no single solution to childhood obesity, but everyone except the food and advertising industries agrees that tougher regulations and restrictions on how unhealthy foods are marketed to children are essential. Even the advertising industry concedes that such regulations would make an impact, otherwise it would not oppose the Bill so vigorously.

Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being generous in allowing interventions. I wanted to stop him when he talked about little children's pester power about food. On the basis of seeing my own child and those of parents whom I know, it is clear to me that pester power definitely applies to toys, but does it apply to food? I have never heard the phrase, "I've got to have that packet of crisps." Children may want a packet of crisps, but it will not necessarily be a packet of Walkers crisps. I do not agree that children are so motivated by food advertising. In the end, it is the mum who does the shopping, or maybe the dad, but definitely not the child.

Nigel Griffiths: I do. In short, they have been right and we have been wrong. It is time that the House caught up by legislating to take firm action in the face of the dire warnings given by the organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned. I am pretty sure that that was why, on 17 October 2007, our Health Secretary said that
	"the reason why advertising restrictions should go much further is that about 70 per cent. of children watch television...outside the traditional children's viewing times."—[ Official Report, 17 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 838.]
	In the House of Lords, on 29 November, Baroness Royall, a Minister, said that
	"we need a ban on all high-fat, salty and sugary foods before the 9 pm watershed."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 2007; Vol. 696, c. 1297.]
	The Bill embraces other media, such as websites, which is necessary following the exposure by Which? of companies' tricks to hook our children on their HFSS products. In anticipation of the ban on adverts during children's programmes that started last summer, cereal companies set up child-friendly websites to entice children to pester their parents for their products. The public were so shocked by the cases that Which? presented that they forced the closure of a least six websites. The kids zones run by Pizza Hut and Burger King, the Nestle cereals, Nesquik, Cookie Crisp and Golden Nuggets websites, the Frosties and Coco Pops sites, and dairylea.co.uk were all withdrawn after the name and shame report by Which?.

Kerry McCarthy: As I suggested in an intervention, I want to focus on the impact that the changing nature of the food that we consume has, not only on children's physical health, but on the mental health of children and adults. On the detail of what is in some of the food that children are consuming, a Food Commission nutritionist, Annie Seeley, said recently:
	"Nearly 40 per cent. of children's foods and drinks contain additives".
	A national survey conducted in 2000 by the Department of Health looked at the diets of more than 1,700 children, and found:
	"Children aged between 11 and 14 were getting as much as 31 per cent. of their energy from sugar, compared with the recommended level of 11 per cent."
	Legal additives commonly used in children's food include tartrazine. It has been assessed that its side-effects include anxiety, migraines, clinical depression, blurred vision, a feeling of suffocation, purple skin patches and sleep disturbance. Most importantly, there is a link to childhood obsessive-compulsive disorder. The Food Standards Agency found that when it was used in combination with other additives, it increased levels of hyperactivity in children.
	There are also real concerns about the use of artificial sweeteners in children's food. Such sweeteners may have a link to carcinogens, and are also linked to migraines, nausea and bowel problems. Other additives in children's food that have caused concern are hydrogenated and trans fats and refined carbohydrates. A survey by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that the IQ of children who ate the greatest amount of refined carbs was 25 points lower than that of those who ate the least amount of refined carbs. Obviously, the question of whether that is cause and effect is an issue; the difference is not necessarily the result of diet, but it is a matter that is worth considering.
	A study carried out in 2006 looked at the overall impact on mental health of the nutrients that are being consumed—or rather not being consumed—these days. It was carried out by Sustain, the food campaign group, and the Mental Health Foundation. They concluded that the changing nature of people's diets had a significant impact on mental health and could be linked to the rise in mental illness in the past 50 years.
	The report was called, "Feeding Minds", and examined a topic that is a hobby-horse of mine—the growth of industrialised farming. It cited the introduction of pesticides in foods and also the intensive farming of, for example, chickens, which now reach their slaughter weight twice as fast as they did 30 years ago. That means that the fat content is 22 per cent. rather than 2 per cent. The balance of vital fatty acids, such as Omega 3 and Omega 6, in chickens has also been altered. That is not specifically the point of the Bill, but we need to take into account of not only the food that we can readily identify as unhealthy, but other food, which is becoming increasingly less nutritious and healthy.
	The study also confirmed that people eat 34 per cent. fewer vegetables and that could be linked to depression, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and Alzheimer's.
	I want to consider surveys of attempts to moderate people's diets and clinical trials of moderating young people's diet to affect behavioural problems and improve mental health. A controlled experiment was conducted in the United States in a jail for chronic offenders aged between 13 and 17. Many of the boys there were found to be deficient in specific nutrients. For example, they consumed on average only 63 per cent. of the iron, 42 per cent. of the magnesium, 39 per cent. of the zinc and 39 per cent. of the vitamin B12 in the US Government's recommended daily allowance. The researchers conducted a trial in which half the inmates were treated with placebos and half were given capsules that contained the missing nutrients. They also gave the prisoners advice on how to improve their diets.
	As a result of the trial, the number of violent incidents caused by inmates in the control group, which took the placebos, fell by 56 per cent., and those caused by prisoners in the experimental group, which took the capsules, fell by 80 per cent. However, there was no reduction among the inmates who took the placebos but refused to improve their diets. It is therefore clear that those who took the capsules benefited most, those who voluntarily changed their diets showed the second most notable change in behaviour, but those who did not change their diets showed no change.
	Other studies have been conducted. A study carried out in Aylesbury young offenders institution between 1995-97 found that, among young adult prisoners given vitamin, fatty acid and mineral supplements, disciplinary offences fell by 26 per cent. and violent offences decreased by 37 per cent. In the control group, which was given placebos, disciplinary and violent offences did not decrease. The author of the report told  The Ecologist last year that,
	"having a bad diet is now a better predictor of future violence than past violent behaviour...Likewise, a diagnosis of psychopathy".
	Lord Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons, picked up on that and said that he was
	"convinced that there is a direct link between diet and antisocial behaviour",
	and that it was "hugely important" to tackle that in our prisons.

Don Foster: Of course I do. That I why I used that particular example—although the point would apply equally to the provision in Sweden—and why I have huge reservations on the matter. I know that other research has contradictory views to the ones that the hon. Gentleman and I are expressing. My point is that we simply do not have a good enough understanding of this issue to carry on with the imposition of severe regulation. I do not believe, for reasons that I will demonstrate, that it would have the effect that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South suggests.
	I therefore wish to examine some of the Bill's provisions. As the House knows, the Bill deals with broadcast media and with non-broadcast media. I give huge credit to the hon. Gentleman for raising the latter issue properly for the first time in this House, because it has been avoided by many people for far too long. Initially, however, I shall concentrate on broadcast media, on which the Bill would make it an offence to advertise "less healthy" products between 5.30 am and 9 pm. The Bill would also change the definition of junk food to include not only HFSS products, but all products "associated with" the brands that make such products.
	We have heard much debate about the impact that that association provision will have, so I do not propose to discuss that, although the fact that it is of great concern to many of us is crucial. For instance, why should the firm that makes Frosties not be able to advertise Bran Flakes? Such a situation would be extraordinary and inexplicable. I pay tribute to hon. Members who have debated these issues before. For example, Debra Shipley, the former Member for Stourbridge, introduced a private Member's Bill on the issue, and only last year Baroness Thornton introduced such a Bill in the other place. Much has happened in the relatively short period since those most recent attempts to go down this line. The House should be aware that this country already has some of the tightest and strictest restrictions on junk food advertising on television in Europe, and more is still to come in what has already been proposed.
	Since reference has not yet been made to this, let us remind ourselves what has happened in that short period: promotional offers targeted at the under-fives are now banned; celebrities and well-known cartoon characters are banned in advertisements aimed at children; HFSS ads are not shown in or around programmes aimed at children or programmes likely to appeal to children aged four to 15; and regardless of the time of broadcast, these advertisements cannot be shown during programmes for which more than 17.6 per cent. of the viewers are children. There is more to come, because from December dedicated children's channels will have to phase out all HFSS advertising. That is what is currently taking place.

Eric Joyce: I am touched by the slavish defence of the advertising industry that was presented from the Tory Front Bench. I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments and he has made some good and sophisticated points, but does he not agree that my hon. Friend's Bill is primarily about children's health, and did he not find it depressing to hear the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) simply refer to vested interests?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. Foods that were once deemed unhealthy are later considered good for you before being thought bad again and so on. Research findings about what is good and bad for people change all the time. Introducing the Bill, which would write off specific foodstuffs, even though they may be perfectly good for people if eaten in moderation, is not only disproportionate but slightly crazy.
	Politicians always have to be seen to be doing something. The Bill strikes me as an example of someone being given a problem and wanting to be seen to be taking action.
	The second ingredient that politicians often use when faced with a problem is a proposal that does not offend anybody. The Bill is a prime example of the sort of action to which politicians will rush. It looks as if they are doing something and the proposal does not offend anybody. That calculation lies behind such responses.
	Margaret Thatcher, in her days in opposition and early days in government, had a fantastic guru called Sir Alfred Sherman, who wrote a marvellous book entitled, "Paradoxes of Power", which I urge people to read. In it, he referred to politicians always offering "painless panaceas". He was right. Time and again, we discuss proposed legislation, which provides what could be described as a painless panacea—something that will sort out all the country's ills with, lo and behold, no pain for anybody. Such solutions do not exist. Whenever we legislate, we should be clear about the proposed benefits—I doubt whether there are any in the Bill—and the costs. We must ask who will lost out. Even cursory scrutiny of the Bill shows that many people could lose out.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. She is a great champion of people taking individual responsibility for their decisions, and especially of parents taking responsibility for their children. This Bill is the ultimate triumph for the nanny state, and I shudder to think where the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South will seek to take us next when he realises that his Bill has made no difference to childhood obesity.
	It is not often that I am proved right, but when the initial restrictions were first mooted by Ofcom, I recall saying in the Select Committee—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) will be able to confirm this—that when they did not make any difference to the levels of childhood obesity, and it is clear that they have not, the health zealots would quickly be back to say, "Well, the restrictions haven't made any difference to childhood obesity levels because they did not go far enough." Within no time at all, they would be back to urge us to go even further. When those further restrictions did not make any difference, they would want to go further still. The only thing that surprises me is how quickly those health zealots have come back to ask for further restrictions. The point is that whatever is introduced, it will make no difference to levels of childhood obesity and it will not satisfy the health lobby or these health zealots. Whatever is done will never be enough for them; we will always be pressed to go one step further. The Bill is bad enough as it stands; it will only encourage people to try to bring about further restrictions in the very near future.
	I support what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South said when he was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry—that we should be wary of over-regulation—and I am delighted that the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), has confirmed that that is the Government's position in respect of the Bill, which they see as an example of over-regulation. I pay tribute to that Minister. When she was a DTI Minister, she was always a champion against too much regulation, even when some of her ministerial colleagues were swayed by some of the arguments in favour of it.
	I am also delighted that Ofcom—the people that the Government have put in charge of this policy area—claims to have a bias against regulation. In its recently published annual plan, outlining its strategic approach for the year, Ofcom makes it clear that it
	"will operate with a bias against intervention...will always seek the least intrusive regulatory methods of achieving...policy objectives"
	and
	"will strive to ensure that our interventions are evidence-based, proportionate, consistent, accountable and transparent in both deliberation and outcome."
	I am greatly heartened by that strategic approach; if Ofcom adopts and follows it, as set out in the annual plan, it could not possibly reach any conclusion other than that the Bill and any further restrictions should not be supported.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and does he agree that if this line of thinking continues we will soon find that candy floss or toffee apple salesmen are banned on the basis that their mere presence in a high street or in a public park could engender pester power?